Case summaries
After six and a half years of single asylum proceedings, the Applicants, a family with three children who were well-integrated in Austria, , were expelled by the Asylum Court to Armenia. The Constitutional Court revoked this decision on the grounds of a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The reasons for this were primarily that the integration of the children was given insufficient weight.
As a result of six convictions owing to trivial offences against property, subsidiary protection was withdrawn from the Applicant, as he would represent a danger to the general public. The Constitutional Court revoked this decision as unconstitutional: the Asylum Court had not interpreted the corresponding national stipulation in accordance with the Directives as the crimes committed were not of the seriousness required in Art 17 Qualification Directive.
The applicant was not permitted to raise a new ground of claim based on her asserted homosexuality, when she had had numerous opportunities to raise this ground of claim earlier. The applicant was however granted leave to apply for judicial review, upon the Judge noting a factual error that had tainted the State’s earlier credibility assessment.
The Court quashed a country guidance decision on the application of Art 15(c) of the Qualification Directive in Iraq because the Tribunal had not considered what was necessary to ensure that it heard proper argument in a case designed to give binding guidance for other applicants.
Exclusion from refugee protection on the grounds of "serious non-political crime" or of "acts against the purposes and principles of the United Nations", cannot solely be based on the fact that an applicant has been a supporter or a member of an organisation which has been classified as terrorist. There must be serious reasons to justify the assumption that the applicant was personally involved in the commission of such crimes.
According to the residence permit application, the Applicant, born in 1935, has various ailments and he is fully dependent on his daughter who lives in Finland and is a Finnish citizen. In an interim order, the Administrative Court turned down the Applicant’s non-refoulement argument and held that judgment would be made on the substantive issue at a later date. While the substantive issue was still pending at the Administrative Court seeking a stay on the execution of the interim order so that he would not to be deported while the Administrative Court decided on the substantive issue (a ‘repeal’ application). As according to national legal provisions, a repeal application can only be made on a judgment which has entered into force, the repeal application was inadmissible. Administrative Court, the Applicant applied to the Supreme
Because the failure to accept the non-refoulement argument might render the appeal on the substantive issue de facto ineffective, in order to guarantee the Applicant’s legal protection, in exceptional circumstances there was reason to carry out a review to determine whether his appeal should be handled by the Supreme Administrative Court without it being detrimental to the final decision under Section 58 of the Administrative Procedure Act and Section 199 Article 2 of the Aliens Act.
The Asylum Court allowed an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicants, a family with both physical and psychological medical conditions, to Italy. Given the applicants’ exceptional circumstances and the problems Italy has with capacity, the lack of reliable assurances from the Italian authorities in relation to medical treatment and accommodation gave rise to a risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR.
The case concerned whether the Returns Directive precludesnational legislation providing for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on a third-country national on the sole ground of their illegal entry or residence in national territory.
In considering the possible exclusion under Art 1F, careful consideration must be given to culpability. Domestic law including any defences must be accurately cited. When the applicant is a child, consideration of her age and understanding; together with consideration of her welfare must form part of the overall analysis. If a child is found to be excluded from asylum or humanitarian protection the welfare of the child should be considered when arrangements for other leave to remain are considered.
Because the Asylum Court refused the appeal only one day after service of the ruling on the appointment of a legal advisor, the Applicant was not granted an appropriate period of time to use the legal advice and any representation in the proceedings and it was therefore made impossible for him to exercise his rights effectively in the proceedings.